I have been needing a new testing menial, so you're welcome to visit the application office, Mert.

In all seriousness, my issue is less with the morality and more with the lack of ability to place the necessary checks to prevent abuse of the system. For one thing, it'd be necessary to ascertain whether it's an actual lifestyle choice, or it's the result of someone being pressured into it through financial pressure, threats, psychological pressure, etc. There's too much motivation to abuse a system of voluntary indentured servants (let's call 'em VISos) to not have such checks. However, the cost for such extensive checks done by a reliable agency would be ridiculously high, and even then it'd almost certainly result in a system that's unacceptably easily circumvented. Assuming there'd be way around that, to make sure it's an actual, 100%, legit lifestyle choice, and that there were also some guarantees in place so that VISos could ensure it was the right choice? And some rules about how to ensure that Visos-born children do not grow up in an unacceptably detrimental environment? If all those issues were magically solved by the invention of OMNISCIENTRON 9000? It makes me uneasy, but I think I'd have to side with the desired rights of the voluntary indentured servitude crowd.

Can you get out of it ?
Are you sane and able to take that decision ?
Is taking this decision not a sign that you cannot take care of your self interest ?
Does your action affects others ?
Do we as a society want to limit freedom of things we think dumb and abhorrent ?

If you think whether a society allows slaves or not doesn't affect EVERYONE IN THAT SOCIETY then you're wrong.

The same could be said for a number of issues you oppose. None of you have given real counters to me being allowed to sell myself into slavery because the arguments against are often the same arguments to support legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, and a number of other contentious social issues that in theory do not really harm anyone but the person (or people) involved in them. Subjective morality legislation leaves you in that position.

Now, I do not actually support being able to sell myself into slavery because slavery is wrong based on what I believe to be objective morality. This belief is back up by my (limited) religious faith and the basis for modern western thought. Subjective morality does not lead to moral people. While I know that you are hung up on the slavery part of it and the Republican is hung up on the gay marriage part of it, this applies to all laws.

Basically, I argued this because I don't like subjective morality and wanted to make point as to why it is bad and the live and let live philosophy of many people in the western world is bad.

The same could be said for a number of issues you oppose. None of you have given real counters to me being allowed to sell myself into slavery because the arguments against are often the same arguments to support legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, and a number of other contentious social issues that in theory do not really harm anyone but the person (or people) involved in them. Subjective morality legislation leaves you in that position.

Now, I do not actually support being able to sell myself into slavery because slavery is wrong based on what I believe to be objective morality. This belief is back up by my (limited) religious faith and the basis for modern western thought. Subjective morality does not lead to moral people. While I know that you are hung up on the slavery part of it and the Republican is hung up on the gay marriage part of it, this applies to all laws.

Basically, I argued this because I don't like subjective morality and wanted to make point as to why it is bad and the live and let live philosophy of many people in the western world is bad.

I thought ijffdrie's argument was a pretty strong one. Slavery is a system that lends itself to abuse. Granted, he added a wrinkle to the argument by talking about a hypothetical situation in which the abuse could be accurately ascertained and addressed.

I thought ijffdrie's argument was a pretty strong one. Slavery is a system that lends itself to abuse. Granted, he added a wrinkle to the argument by talking about a hypothetical situation in which the abuse could be accurately ascertained and addressed.

It's strips people of their humanity and puts them on the same level as animals, which people are not equal to. There is something that sets us apart from other animals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl

The difference is gay people wanting the basic rights to marry and not be fired for their orientation are not equivalent to someone wanting to sell themself into slavery.

Because one is an orientation and the other is something done because people are either stupid, desperate, or lazy.

Why? Both are contracts between individuals and the government. Basic rights are totally arguable.

It's strips people of their humanity and puts them on the same level as animals, which people are not equal to. There is something that sets us apart from other animals.

What would you argue that sets us apart? Asking out of curiosity.

I do think that secular society has never satisfactorily answered the question as to where morals come from, and that the question is too often swept under the rug.

That said, I'm also someone who finds it difficult to believe in a deity. It's possible that morality is illusory, but I do not think it is to society's benefit that this become widely accepted. This is also why I think religion is beneficial for society, which makes me a bit of a hypocrite since I myself am not convinced of religion's veracity.

I do think that secular society has never satisfactorily answered the question as to where morals come from, and that the question is too often swept under the rug.

That said, I'm also someone who finds it difficult to believe in a deity. It's possible that morality is illusory, but I do not think it is to society's benefit that this become widely accepted. This is also why I think religion is beneficial for society, which makes me a bit of a hypocrite since I myself am not convinced of religion's veracity.

Either our immortal soul or some level of consciousness.

As for where our morality comes from its either from a creator deity or some form of higher enlightenment (Buddhism-esque). To me there are no real secular answers for the origins of morality. If it is something naturally imbued in all people then how did it get there?

I wonder if the new overtime rules for salaried positions will ever apply to the military because many people work more than 40 hours especially on deployments. I really don't have much faith that it will.

As for where our morality comes from its either from a creator deity or some form of higher enlightenment (Buddhism-esque). To me there are no real secular answers for the origins of morality. If it is something naturally imbued in all people then how did it get there?

Interesting.

The morality could have gotten there because there are evolutionary advantages for such behavior. While it might reduce a single organism's likelihood of survival, it increases the group's.

Of course, this wouldn't actually be morality. It'd just be a survival technique. As such, it could be discarded if it ever became inconvenient (which is a rather frightening prospect).

If you don't mind my saying, such a Darwinian approach actually somewhat matches your relative indifference toward starvation and deprivation in parts of the world outside of the West. Basically, putting one group over another (as opposed to more universalist values which might prioritize the moral aspect).

So I would say that there is a secular answer, but it's unsatisfactory and essentially says morality exists only as a cover for survival.

The morality could have gotten there because there are evolutionary advantages for such behavior. While it might reduce a single organism's likelihood of survival, it increases the group's.

Of course, this wouldn't actually be morality. It'd just be a survival technique. As such, it could be discarded if it ever became inconvenient (which is a rather frightening prospect).

If you don't mind my saying, such a Darwinian approach actually somewhat matches your relative indifference toward starvation and deprivation in parts of the world outside of the West. Basically, putting one group over another (as opposed to more universalist values which might prioritize the moral aspect).

So I would say that there is a secular answer, but it's unsatisfactory and essentially says morality exists only as a cover for survival.

Well, the West is my 'tribe' or my 'team'. Why would I root for Team China against Team West or the Mets against the Cubs? Just doesn't make much sense. It's social suicide in the worst case.

However, if we evolved our morality to survive then we should look at what has lead to survive and not what sounds good in the current year. Is that not the logical stance on it? The smart stance?

Well, we already enslave things, animals. And some of those we keep in cages or kill are pretty damn smart. Not sure if testing things on primates is still a thing, but we do keep them in cages in zoos. Japanese hunt cetaceans, we keep very smart birds in very small cages, and incredibly intelligent animals like pigs are slaughtered for food.

And if the justification here is "they are not smart/conscious as we are" then what happens when science improves our own intellect and bodies. Does it then become okay to enslave non-enhanced Homo Sapiens? Especially if they are clones made for the purpose? What about AI, does it merit rights? Probably, if it asks for them, but what if it doesn't care? And of course the ultimate slippery slope, when in some distant future transhumans meet unimproved humans will they see them as persons, how will they treat them?

If we go the other route and proclaim smart animals as persons worth protecting, the "smart" immediately becomes a hiccup. How smart do they need to be to pass? If experiencing suffering is the criteria then everything more complex than a sponge or similar filter feeders is out. And when we consider even plants react poorly to being cut (unsurprisingly) by releasing chemicals that make other plants react in preparation of danger. So what are we left with, some artificial paste foods, maaaybe cloned meat?

As always the answer is probably in the middle, some exploitation and some compassion will always exist. I personally think cloned meat may well be the point when animal cruelty concerns outweigh our selfish desires, at least for most people. Despite clearly reacting poorly to being eaten () I don't plant rights will get much traction, so plants and cloned meat it is. As for slaves, probably only robotic servants who will be obviously built not to care about being servants.

Morality, from a secular standpoint, is shared desire for protection, balanced with a desire for freedom. Most people don't want to be killed, so it's been decided that killing is morally wrong. Most people don't want to be robbed, so it's been decided that robbing is morally wrong. Most people don't want to have people get angry at them, but that desire does not outweigh most people's desire to get angry at others, so it's been decided it's moral to get angry at people as long as you have a reason.

This is of course a simplification. There's always things like culture, values getting associated with specific parts of society, people enforcing their will through strength until that will becomes part of culture, etc.

Basically, "I'd rather live in a society where I'm not allowed to kill rather than live in a society where others can kill me".